Trump’s Decision To End Deporation Protections Is Not Racist, Supreme Court Rules

Trump’s Decision To End Deportation Protections Is Not Racist, Supreme Court Rules

The court ruled the goverment's move was not 'overtly racial'

“Who Funds That?” Episode 12: Trump Can Say “You’re Fired”

The Supreme Court has issued its rulings, and with big decisions on citizenship, transgender athletes, and congressional redistricting, a major case with significant impacts on policy may fly under the radar. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court ruled that the President has the power to dismiss members of multi-member federal boards like the Federal Trade []

Liberal Justice Makes Dire Prediction about Trump Ruling

Jonathan Ernst / REUTERSThe three liberal-leaning justices on the Supreme Court are sounding the alarm about the latest ruling from the high court that vastly expanded executive power. The high court in a 5-4 ruling Monday blocked Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, deciding that “Congress, not the courts,” must change federal law on removing members of independent agencies, as the ruling said Fed governors are explicitly protected by “for cause” statutes.But justices handed Trump an expansion of presidential authority as, in a 6-3 ruling, it said that he could fire members of independent regulatory agencies at will, overturning a 91-year-old precedent. Read more at The Daily Beast.

Supremes’ Memo to Lower Courts: Presidential Power Trumps Leftist Lawfare

Supremes’ Memo to Lower Courts: Presidential Power Trumps Leftist Lawfare

Former prosecutor unnerved by Justice John Roberts

Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann expressed deep concern about the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which overturned 91 years of precedent allowing presidents to fire independent agency members without cause. Weissmann highlighted Chief Justice Roberts' use of the word secrecy when describing executive branch vitality, calling the language chilling. He argued the ruling extends Roberts' expansive presidential power theory from the Trump v. United States immunity case. Weissmann warned the decision unleashes political patronage and deemed it a very ahistoric decision with significant long-term consequences. He cautioned against allowing presidents to replace career officials based on party affiliation, invoking Justice Robert Jackson's warnings from his Nazi prosecution work at Nuremberg. You do not want a Republican president to come in and fire every Democrat, and you do not want every Democratic president to come in and fire every Republican, he said. Weissmann also criticized the court's originalism claims as laughable, pointing to its simultaneous decision protecting the Federal Reserve as evidence of result-oriented judging.Watch the video below. Your browser does not support the video tag.